In re the Claim of Pellegrini

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Pellegrini

218 A.D.2d 893, 630 N.Y.S.2d 420, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8647

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedAugust 10, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 218 A.D.2d 893 (In re the Claim of Pellegrini) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re the Claim of Pellegrini, 218 A.D.2d 893, 630 N.Y.S.2d 420, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8647 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 22, 1994, which ruled that claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits.

Claimant was employed as a cleaning woman by the employer, a religious not-for-profit organization that operates a ritual bath. Claimant was required to clean the bathrooms and do laundry, but was not involved in any of the ritual religious activities carried on by the employer. Another woman was responsible for the ritualistic aspects of the baths and was in charge of the facility. We find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that claimant was strictly a cleaning woman and not a caretaker excluded from coverage under Labor Law § 563 (2) (c).

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, Casey and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 22, 1994, which ruled that claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits.

Claimant was employed as a cleaning woman by the employer, a religious not-for-profit organization that operates a ritual bath. Claimant was required to clean the bathrooms and do laundry, but was not involved in any of the ritual religious activities carried on by the employer. Another woman was responsible for the ritualistic aspects of the baths and was in charge of the facility. We find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that claimant was strictly a cleaning woman and not a caretaker excluded from coverage under Labor Law § 563 (2) (c).

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, Casey and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

218 A.D.2d 893, 630 N.Y.S.2d 420, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8647, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-pellegrini-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack